Hi John again,
we discussed the issue at our call yesterday, see
http://www.w3.org/2007/09/25-core-minutes#item09 .
We would like to make you aware of two aspects of the topic:
First, IRIs are actually a subset of what XLink does (which is
referenced by XML Schema 1.0).
Second: our real comment on your specification is not "reference IRI
instead of anyURI" ,but rather: it is not clear to us whether IRI or XML
Schema xsd:anyURI support is required normatively or depends on the host
language(s) of XForms 1..
We would prefer that you mention IRI-flavored items explicitly in that
context, rather than changing the definition from anyURI to RFC 3987.
Felix
Felix Sasaki wrote:
>
> Hi John,
>
> John Boyer wrote:
>>
>> Hi Felix,
>>
>> I would like to take this opportunity to provide a little context
>> for the response than that which appeared in the prior response. I
>> would then like to see whether that context helps to make the
>> response more satisfactory for now.
>>
>> First, the spec that we normatively reference, XML Schema 1.0 Second
>> Edition, defines xs:anyURI datatype in terms of RFC 2396, RFC 2732,
>> and the algorithm in Section 5.4 of XLink [1]. It does not refer to
>> RFC 3987 at all, as this document came out after XML Schema 1.0
>> Second Edition.
>
> that's exactly the point: XML Schema 1.0 does not refer to RFC 3987,
> since RFC 3987 was too late. Nevertheless, the xs:anyURI data type was
> designed to be compatible with the upcoming IRI specification.
>
>>
>>
>> The working group decided to defer to a future version upgrading the
>> XML Schema engines required by XForms processors and design tools.
> in my opinion, no upgrade of the XML Schema engines is necessary. The
> reason that XML Schema 1.0 does not cite the IRI spec, is due to
> timing (which you described above), not due to technical issues.
>
>>
>> And the more important fact, which responds to your response, is that
>> the working group decided that upgrading to XPath 2.0 is a future
>> feature scheduled for XForms 2.0, so the citation you gave of XPath
>> 2.0 amounts to another pointer to a feature that is not within the
>> scope of XForms 1.1.
>
> I hope that my explanation above makes clear that a reference to IRI
> will not require an implementation change for XML Schema engines
> required by XForms processors.
>
>> In other words, all of this functionality is amounting to requests
>> for features that are not in the XForms 1.1 requirements
>> (http://www.w3.org/TR/xforms-11-req/).
>
> Me / the i18n core Working Group don't have a new feature request, but
> a request for clarification in existing features. My reference to
> XPath 2.0 also was a reference to a clarifying note in that
> specification, and not a request to implement features unique to it.
>
>>
>> So, our response was not rejecting the request, but rather committing
>> to adding this issue into the requirements stream of the appropriate
>> version of XForms containing numerous requirements related to this
>> request,
>>
>> Could you let us know if this information makes it possible to accept
>> the resolution (understood grudgingly) with the understanding that it
>> is on the agenda for our future.
>
> I'm sorry, but personally I'm not yet convinced. Other participants
> from the i18n core WG might provide input on this thread, and we will
> come back with a Working Group reply after our next call this week
> (Tuesday).
>
> Felix
>
>